[Peace-discuss] Assume they find WMDs

[C. G. Estabrook]

Perhaps we should point out that if the government in Baghdad were
democratic, it would no doubt be developing nuclear weapons, given the
neighborhood.  In general, the events of this winter have made it clear to
countries who want to avoid being attacked by the world's only superpower,
how they should proceed: be like North Korea, not like Iraq.  That is,
have a few weapons of mass destruction, preferably nuclear, sufficient to
deter the United States.

The evidence is clear: the US is about to kill many Iraqis and destroy
their cities (and has threatened to use nuclear weapons to do so), but --
according to the new president of South Korea -- the US quickly shelved
plans to launch a nuclear attack on North Korea.  North Korea probably has
a few nuclear weapons, while Iraq does not.  Although the superpower could
obliterate either, it cannot take the chance that, in its death-throes,
North Korea could use such a weapon against US personnel or its allies.
The vast US arsenal is unusable, if the price is Seoul.

The US army defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat
of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological
... through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."  That is
precisely the policy followed by the United States around the world, in
both Republican and Democrat administrations.  In just over a decade since
the check on US policy provided by the USSR was removed, the US has
attacked or supported attacks on Panama, Somalia, East Timor, Colombia,
Serbia, Angola, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, and occupied Palestine.

Unfortunately for the world, the way to avoid attack seems clear.  --CGE


On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Chuck Minne wrote:

>  I am solidly opposed to going to war with Iraq. That being said, I
> think that anti-war activists should be planning on, counting on, the
> world being convinced that there are indeed WMDs in Iraq. (That is my
> gut feeling, but my gut feeling makes no difference.) To me the
> arguments should be: “Sure, he has WMDs, that does not justify going
> to war, instead the following actions should be taken 
..” Otherwise,
> I think simply saying that there is not now enough evidence, implies
> that war is OK if the evidence is discovered (which I think is
> inevitable.)
> 
>  Put differently, what do we say when the evidence is discovered? And
> shouldn't we be saying it now?
>